You're right. I could have used either of those in that situation, but the semicolon DOES work there, regardless of whether it was the MOST appropriate in that situation or not. Grammar is never an exact science, and as a result, there are choices that have to be made. I probably did choose the wrong thing there, and I did weigh my options, but I didn't feel that the second half of the clause was enough of an "explanation" to warrant using a colon, and it was too much of a continuation of my previous thought to warrant a full stop. But I do feel that regardless of whether others believe that it was the MOST appropriate choice, I don't believe that anybody can really argue that it was an INCORRECT one.
It does have one important use that I have found, though. I have this bad habit (as you may have already noticed) of rambling on and on and on and writing extremely long sentences. These aren't technically grammatical mistakes, of course, but the Word grammar check will still warn me about them so I know what needs to be tweaked/rewritten.
Perhaps. But while I'm also a rather Nathaniel Hawthorne-esque writer in terms of my sentence lengths, that does NOT make it incorrect, nor does it necessarily make it more difficult to read. (My previous sentence would have been flagged in Word, yet if you read it, you notice that it has decent flow and is easy to understand.)
What bothers me the most is that Word's grammar checker assumes you're an idiot. Every single time that I have it enabled and use a semicolon, it flags it, saying "Semicolon use". Based on the way I see that "correction" used, it assumes that the person writing is stupid and MUST have used it mistakenly. Even in the best of light, this method is rude, merely because it second-guesses you every time. I KNOW how to use a semicolon, dammit, and I'll do it when I damn well please.
I can understand why they have it do this; since semicolons are meant to tie two related clauses together, it makes it more difficult to guage whether the two sentences on either side of the semicolon are correctly tied together. Instead, they merely flag it every time it's used. But man, do I ever get the feeling that it's insulting my intelligence.
I tend to shut off the grammar checker and instead I only use the spellcheck function. Even then, I tend to add strange things to the custom dictionary, so that when I use certain phrases or intentional misspellings (such as "dammit", above) it doesn't fuss at me.
I agree with what other people here are saying though: There is NO substitute for proper proofing.
I find this rather funny, especially because you had a number of mistakes in your own comment.
First off, it's "80's", not "80s".
Secondly, the first sentence in your fourth paragraph is wrong; it's a run-on sentence. You needed to write it like this: "There's no such construction as 'would of'; it makes no sense. Perhaps you meant 'would have'?"
That last sentence was incorrect, too; IT should have been "Ugh, you're probably 12 years old; you still have time to learn."
I suppose your post would've been much funnier if you weren't being so hypocritical.
Re:Believe it or not, Apple's DRM doesn't bother m
on
iTunes DRM Hole Closed
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The problem with this, though, is that the songs are already low quality (128Kbps, even though the AAC compression is pretty decent; I have a hard time hearing any artifacts in them). If you burn them, then re-rip them, you're compressing the audio even further, creating a lower-quality version of the song than you already had.
The thing I liked about pyMusique was that it would download the song and just not attach the DRM to it, therefore not requiring the file to be re-encoded. Even JHymn requires a re-encoding, which means that to prevent the file from having artifacts you'd have to encode at a much higher bitrate.
Wait, everybody can't hear that high-pitched hum that TVs and monitors make? Jeez, I always wondered why I was the only person I knew who was really annoyed by it.
Monitor flicker is one of the biggest annoyances to me... I can spot a 60Hz without any difficulty whatsoever, and I can see a 72Hz or 75Hz refresh rate out of the periphery. I personally can't deal with anything less than 85Hz unless I absolutely have to. It's one of the reasons that I often have my monitor's resolution lower than I'd like. For example, my second monitor at work (I use a laptop with its screen as the primary monitor), an NEC 19", would happily run at 1600x1200, but only at 60Hz. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, so instead I run it at 1280x1024@60Hz. It's just better that way.
The problem with doing this is that you are cutting these people off from the many sites coded for IE. I use Firefox 95% of the time but I keep an IE around for sites that balk. Often it helps.
Ah, but there IS a way to take care of this, and it's something that, had I really cared to, could have accomplished in about five minutes, both to install it and to show the person how to use it.
A simple extension for Firefox called "Open this page in IE." It allows you to load any current page or link to a page into IE, all without you having to open any programs. It'll just open the window for you, load the page, and you can close it when you're done with it.
But the reason I didn't is mainly because I think your 95% assertion is incorrect. In most (>99%) cases, I think that the non-functioning aspect of the page has little to do with vital functions and more to do with things like fonts that aren't sized correctly, and in the other cases, it's usually a situation where it's not that important to the person and they won't bother to deal with it.
What's more, I can think of only one specific group of sites that don't at least FUNCTION in Mozilla/Firefox as opposed to IE, and that group is Microsoft-based pages. The MSDN library, MSN Gaming Zone, Windows Update and the like... Those are the only pages I can think of that have severe functionality issues in Firefox. And I view a LOT of different webpages. All the rest are minor cosmetic things that the average user wouldn't notice in the first place.
Since both browsers take you too the same Internet, there will be a number (and not an insignificant number) who see "nothing different" and so they stay with IE.
Exactly why you should get them using Firefox. If they don't see a difference, then that makes it all that much easier for them to switch.
You know what I do?
My mom bought a new laptop from Dell recently, and she asked me to drive up and configure it for her, which I did. What I did was to use Windows' "Set Program Access and Defaults" to use Firefox as the default browser, and completely removed IE altogether from menus, the desktop, etc. by telling the configuration program to not allow access to it. This is easier than it seems, since Windows will remove all icons and shortcuts to it so there's no way to bring up IE unless you either run WindowsUpdate or specifically type 'iexplore' into the Run dialog.
I then installed an IE theme into Firefox and *poof!* To them it runs exactly the same, and nobody is the wiser. If I really wanted to make it transparent, I could've renamed the shortcuts and changed the icons, and I could probably have figured out a way to make it actuallY SAY "Internet Explorer" in the title bar.
I did the same thing today with a friend of a friend who had so much spyware she couldn't even check her webmail.
In both cases, I didn't even need to make them THINK they were running IE, as once I told them that they wouldn't notice a difference in their web surfing experience, that firefox had copied over all of their previous settings and cookies, and that they wouldn't be getting any more spyware unknowingly, they were ecstatic. All they really needed was to have their default browser changed and IE removed so they didn't load it without thinking, and they were happy as pigs in shit.
I really don't think it's too hard to make people understand that the benefits of using a better program easily outweigh the small inconvenience of remembering that it's not called Internet Explorer. Once they understand that all of those annoyances won't be showing up later on, they are more than happy to double-click on a different icon.
The way I see it, this is a clear issue of states' rights. A state gets to decide what requirements there are for licensing of any kind within itself. This is why doctors don't have national medical licenses, and why you have to get a fishing permit for two states if you fish on both sides of the state border. It seems strange to me that they think that they can get away with this, regardless of which political party they belong to (theoretically, the Republicans should be decrying this as a socialist movement, and the Democrats, well, they should just know better).
But there's no question that this falls under the jurisdiction of the individual states. Hell, theoretically states could refuse to recognize a Federal driver's license.
...do you have any simpathy [sic] for the driver doing 75 mph in a 35 mph and finaly [sic] gets a ticket because a cop just happened to be on the road?
It's not a question of this. What it IS a question of is this: If that same cop decided that he was going to randomly hand out tickets to people driving 75 in that same 35 mile-per-hour zone, then it would be more like what the FCC does. The FCC targets specific people (or sometimes random people) based on nothing more than a whim or pressure from constituents. For example: Howard Stern wasn't allowed to air a topic on teen sex, but Oprah Winfrey was, based solely on the fact that Stern's show is considered to be less decent. The fact that the subject matter was the same has no bearing on it. This is unfair treatment based on public opinion, and it is indeed the equivalent of a cop stopping one person going 75 in that 35 but not the one right next to him.
Laws that are unevenly enforced are not just laws and as such I feel we have a responsibility to challenge them. But that's just me.
how many of you would really you use the new ability to copy music/movies/games just for backups?
Who cares if it's just for backups? The point is that those backups wouldn't be illegal.
I, for one, backup my CDs all the time; I've heard too many horror stories about people leaving their CDs in their cars only to have them stolen. If I get my CDs stolen from my car, at least all I'm losing is a 25 CDR instead of a $15 album.
Video games and movies? Ehh. Too much trouble, and they rarely leave their cases long enough to get damaged anyway.
For software Friend to friend makes up the bulk of software piracy. Your getting an identical copy every time. But movies and music degrade as friend 2 friend copying of music and movies is to anolog medium and often in the worst copying conditions.
That may be true for some copying, but not for all of it. Especially with DVD burners coming down in price--and for the newer, dual-layer DVD burners that are coming out now--you can copy a DVD without any loss in quality. Especially in terms of friend-to-friend copying, it's VERY easy to make a perfect copy of a CD, and now even a DVD. The RIAA has no less valid stance here than do the MPAA or BSA; the likelihood of a movie, album or application being perfectly copied is the same.
It's the mainstream market finding out that they can copy their neighbours' software and music that keeps them up at night.
Somehow, I think it's not that. It seems to me that what they're really afraid of are people who download these games and programs for free off of P2P software (I'm thinking Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella, etc. more than BitTorrent). Even the RIAA has said that making a copy for a friend or neighbor is fine and that it's the mass distributors they're really focused on.
For example, tracking how long it takes you to get from point A to point B, and then with the knowledge of your license, they can send you a ticket via the mail if you were speeding! No need for camera ticketing anymore.
Hell, with automated toll tags in your car (EZPass, FastLane, etc.), they could already do that. They have to keep records of it because otherwise they can't bill you for it, so if the police managed to find a way to obtain those records they could ticket you for speeding based on the times you went through the tollbooths.
Ticketing was the first thing I thought of with this. With the speeds that everybody drives around here in Connecticut/New York/Massachusetts, I couldn't imagine how awful the roads would be if everybody HAD to drive no faster than 65.
At least one real-life recovering addict has used the in-game forums to loudly object to the introduction of gleam.
That's odd. It seems to me that looking at the effects of a drug on a fake world to see what might happen is a very interesting sociological experiment. It's hard to produce real-world effects in a static model, if only for the fact that people tend to do unpredictable things. But stick a drug with real effects (and benefits and detriments, just like a real drug) into a world run by diverse peoples, and you just might see a mirroring of real-world behavior regarding it.
It's interesting that cities have banned the drug; I would've thought something like that wouldn't be controlled at a governmental level in a MUD. I wonder if the drug actually forces the user to do things he/she wouldn't want to do, such as kill somebody or steal from them in order to get enough money to buy more gleam. If that's the case, it's more understandable why cities would want to keep it away from their walls. I'm also assuming that this MUD is PK-able?
I think this is cool. But then again, I've always preferred that art imitate life.
If a Mom came home and found a kid playing a game that featured a sex scene, there'd be uproar.
One more reason that parents should be paying attention to their children's habits. If a parent came home and found her child playing a game that featured a sex scene, that mother should realize that she should have paid more attention to the fact that the game was rated M--for MATURE. If she's willing to buy a game like that for her son, she'd better realize that it's her own damned fault.
"I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Joey's copy of 'Flaying Them Alive' had violence and nudity in it!"
I've never heard anyone in the US use the term "sand niggers."
No, but I've definitely heard the term "towel-heads" used before. It just blows my mind sometimes how some people see this situation. So yes, I really do feel like perhaps a little more tolerance toward other religions and peoples might have prevented a war in the Middle East.
A closed mouth with a finger making the "shush" gesture. This software's license forbids or encumbers the publication of reviews without the permission of the publisher. Reviews you may have read of this software may have been selected by the publisher to represent it in an unfairly positive light.
Any license that would prevent you from reviewing the software is highly illegal. Reviews are explicitly covered under the Fair Use clause of copyright law. So much, in fact, that it's entirely legal to include clips of movies, songs, or text from a book in your review. (A perfect example of this was when two whole pages of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was leaked to the public in a review. Court's ruling: Fair Use.)
You could easily challenge something like that in court, if it came down to it.
Many/.ers speak English as a second language. How many languages do you speak/write? Do you always do it flawlessly?
Actually, MOST people I know from other countries who speak/write English as a second language do it FAR better than most native English speakers I know.
I would wager dollars to doughnuts that the person who makes a mistake like that is NOT foreign.
It is true that pianos' even-temperedness makes for much more muted difference in the sounds of different keys (I wouldn't ever say, though, that key "colors" don't apply to an even-tempered piano, though, as you did; I hear them even on a perfectly-tuned piano--or a synthesized piano, which is a perfect example of a perfectly tempered instrument), but I wasn't necessarily talking about a piano in my above post, either. The example I gave above was of Bach's "Magnificat", which is a good example due to its heavy use of fretless strings and wind instruments, which DO play in non-temperament.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. I could have used either of those in that situation, but the semicolon DOES work there, regardless of whether it was the MOST appropriate in that situation or not. Grammar is never an exact science, and as a result, there are choices that have to be made. I probably did choose the wrong thing there, and I did weigh my options, but I didn't feel that the second half of the clause was enough of an "explanation" to warrant using a colon, and it was too much of a continuation of my previous thought to warrant a full stop. But I do feel that regardless of whether others believe that it was the MOST appropriate choice, I don't believe that anybody can really argue that it was an INCORRECT one.
It does have one important use that I have found, though. I have this bad habit (as you may have already noticed) of rambling on and on and on and writing extremely long sentences. These aren't technically grammatical mistakes, of course, but the Word grammar check will still warn me about them so I know what needs to be tweaked/rewritten.
Perhaps. But while I'm also a rather Nathaniel Hawthorne-esque writer in terms of my sentence lengths, that does NOT make it incorrect, nor does it necessarily make it more difficult to read. (My previous sentence would have been flagged in Word, yet if you read it, you notice that it has decent flow and is easy to understand.)
What bothers me the most is that Word's grammar checker assumes you're an idiot. Every single time that I have it enabled and use a semicolon, it flags it, saying "Semicolon use". Based on the way I see that "correction" used, it assumes that the person writing is stupid and MUST have used it mistakenly. Even in the best of light, this method is rude, merely because it second-guesses you every time. I KNOW how to use a semicolon, dammit, and I'll do it when I damn well please.
I can understand why they have it do this; since semicolons are meant to tie two related clauses together, it makes it more difficult to guage whether the two sentences on either side of the semicolon are correctly tied together. Instead, they merely flag it every time it's used. But man, do I ever get the feeling that it's insulting my intelligence.
I tend to shut off the grammar checker and instead I only use the spellcheck function. Even then, I tend to add strange things to the custom dictionary, so that when I use certain phrases or intentional misspellings (such as "dammit", above) it doesn't fuss at me.
I agree with what other people here are saying though: There is NO substitute for proper proofing.
His post was hypocritical because he was criticizing for things that he was, himself, at fault for.
And I would argue that using commas to join independent clauses IS incorrect, as this is exactly what colons and semicolons are for.
I stand corrected on the 80's/80s thing; I had improperly remembered the AP style guide as saying that they do require apostrophes.
I find this rather funny, especially because you had a number of mistakes in your own comment.
First off, it's "80's", not "80s".
Secondly, the first sentence in your fourth paragraph is wrong; it's a run-on sentence. You needed to write it like this: "There's no such construction as 'would of'; it makes no sense. Perhaps you meant 'would have'?"
That last sentence was incorrect, too; IT should have been "Ugh, you're probably 12 years old; you still have time to learn."
I suppose your post would've been much funnier if you weren't being so hypocritical.
The problem with this, though, is that the songs are already low quality (128Kbps, even though the AAC compression is pretty decent; I have a hard time hearing any artifacts in them). If you burn them, then re-rip them, you're compressing the audio even further, creating a lower-quality version of the song than you already had.
The thing I liked about pyMusique was that it would download the song and just not attach the DRM to it, therefore not requiring the file to be re-encoded. Even JHymn requires a re-encoding, which means that to prevent the file from having artifacts you'd have to encode at a much higher bitrate.
Oops. I meant 1280x1024@85Hz, not 60Hz. I'm an idiot.
Wait, everybody can't hear that high-pitched hum that TVs and monitors make? Jeez, I always wondered why I was the only person I knew who was really annoyed by it.
Monitor flicker is one of the biggest annoyances to me... I can spot a 60Hz without any difficulty whatsoever, and I can see a 72Hz or 75Hz refresh rate out of the periphery. I personally can't deal with anything less than 85Hz unless I absolutely have to. It's one of the reasons that I often have my monitor's resolution lower than I'd like. For example, my second monitor at work (I use a laptop with its screen as the primary monitor), an NEC 19", would happily run at 1600x1200, but only at 60Hz. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, so instead I run it at 1280x1024@60Hz. It's just better that way.
The problem with doing this is that you are cutting these people off from the many sites coded for IE. I use Firefox 95% of the time but I keep an IE around for sites that balk. Often it helps.
Ah, but there IS a way to take care of this, and it's something that, had I really cared to, could have accomplished in about five minutes, both to install it and to show the person how to use it.
A simple extension for Firefox called "Open this page in IE." It allows you to load any current page or link to a page into IE, all without you having to open any programs. It'll just open the window for you, load the page, and you can close it when you're done with it.
But the reason I didn't is mainly because I think your 95% assertion is incorrect. In most (>99%) cases, I think that the non-functioning aspect of the page has little to do with vital functions and more to do with things like fonts that aren't sized correctly, and in the other cases, it's usually a situation where it's not that important to the person and they won't bother to deal with it.
What's more, I can think of only one specific group of sites that don't at least FUNCTION in Mozilla/Firefox as opposed to IE, and that group is Microsoft-based pages. The MSDN library, MSN Gaming Zone, Windows Update and the like... Those are the only pages I can think of that have severe functionality issues in Firefox. And I view a LOT of different webpages. All the rest are minor cosmetic things that the average user wouldn't notice in the first place.
If you go to Google and type in "firefox ie theme", the first link is to this site:
http://pages.prodigy.net/zzxc/ieskin/
It works relatively well, or at least, enough for the average user.
Since both browsers take you too the same Internet, there will be a number (and not an insignificant number) who see "nothing different" and so they stay with IE.
Exactly why you should get them using Firefox. If they don't see a difference, then that makes it all that much easier for them to switch.
You know what I do?
My mom bought a new laptop from Dell recently, and she asked me to drive up and configure it for her, which I did. What I did was to use Windows' "Set Program Access and Defaults" to use Firefox as the default browser, and completely removed IE altogether from menus, the desktop, etc. by telling the configuration program to not allow access to it. This is easier than it seems, since Windows will remove all icons and shortcuts to it so there's no way to bring up IE unless you either run WindowsUpdate or specifically type 'iexplore' into the Run dialog.
I then installed an IE theme into Firefox and *poof!* To them it runs exactly the same, and nobody is the wiser. If I really wanted to make it transparent, I could've renamed the shortcuts and changed the icons, and I could probably have figured out a way to make it actuallY SAY "Internet Explorer" in the title bar.
I did the same thing today with a friend of a friend who had so much spyware she couldn't even check her webmail.
In both cases, I didn't even need to make them THINK they were running IE, as once I told them that they wouldn't notice a difference in their web surfing experience, that firefox had copied over all of their previous settings and cookies, and that they wouldn't be getting any more spyware unknowingly, they were ecstatic. All they really needed was to have their default browser changed and IE removed so they didn't load it without thinking, and they were happy as pigs in shit.
I really don't think it's too hard to make people understand that the benefits of using a better program easily outweigh the small inconvenience of remembering that it's not called Internet Explorer. Once they understand that all of those annoyances won't be showing up later on, they are more than happy to double-click on a different icon.
The way I see it, this is a clear issue of states' rights. A state gets to decide what requirements there are for licensing of any kind within itself. This is why doctors don't have national medical licenses, and why you have to get a fishing permit for two states if you fish on both sides of the state border. It seems strange to me that they think that they can get away with this, regardless of which political party they belong to (theoretically, the Republicans should be decrying this as a socialist movement, and the Democrats, well, they should just know better).
But there's no question that this falls under the jurisdiction of the individual states. Hell, theoretically states could refuse to recognize a Federal driver's license.
...do you have any simpathy [sic] for the driver doing 75 mph in a 35 mph and finaly [sic] gets a ticket because a cop just happened to be on the road?
It's not a question of this. What it IS a question of is this: If that same cop decided that he was going to randomly hand out tickets to people driving 75 in that same 35 mile-per-hour zone, then it would be more like what the FCC does. The FCC targets specific people (or sometimes random people) based on nothing more than a whim or pressure from constituents. For example: Howard Stern wasn't allowed to air a topic on teen sex, but Oprah Winfrey was, based solely on the fact that Stern's show is considered to be less decent. The fact that the subject matter was the same has no bearing on it. This is unfair treatment based on public opinion, and it is indeed the equivalent of a cop stopping one person going 75 in that 35 but not the one right next to him.
Laws that are unevenly enforced are not just laws and as such I feel we have a responsibility to challenge them. But that's just me.
how many of you would really you use the new ability to copy music/movies/games just for backups?
Who cares if it's just for backups? The point is that those backups wouldn't be illegal.
I, for one, backup my CDs all the time; I've heard too many horror stories about people leaving their CDs in their cars only to have them stolen. If I get my CDs stolen from my car, at least all I'm losing is a 25 CDR instead of a $15 album.
Video games and movies? Ehh. Too much trouble, and they rarely leave their cases long enough to get damaged anyway.
For software Friend to friend makes up the bulk of software piracy. Your getting an identical copy every time. But movies and music degrade as friend 2 friend copying of music and movies is to anolog medium and often in the worst copying conditions.
That may be true for some copying, but not for all of it. Especially with DVD burners coming down in price--and for the newer, dual-layer DVD burners that are coming out now--you can copy a DVD without any loss in quality. Especially in terms of friend-to-friend copying, it's VERY easy to make a perfect copy of a CD, and now even a DVD. The RIAA has no less valid stance here than do the MPAA or BSA; the likelihood of a movie, album or application being perfectly copied is the same.
It's the mainstream market finding out that they can copy their neighbours' software and music that keeps them up at night.
Somehow, I think it's not that. It seems to me that what they're really afraid of are people who download these games and programs for free off of P2P software (I'm thinking Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella, etc. more than BitTorrent). Even the RIAA has said that making a copy for a friend or neighbor is fine and that it's the mass distributors they're really focused on.
For example, tracking how long it takes you to get from point A to point B, and then with the knowledge of your license, they can send you a ticket via the mail if you were speeding! No need for camera ticketing anymore.
Hell, with automated toll tags in your car (EZPass, FastLane, etc.), they could already do that. They have to keep records of it because otherwise they can't bill you for it, so if the police managed to find a way to obtain those records they could ticket you for speeding based on the times you went through the tollbooths.
Ticketing was the first thing I thought of with this. With the speeds that everybody drives around here in Connecticut/New York/Massachusetts, I couldn't imagine how awful the roads would be if everybody HAD to drive no faster than 65.
That's a serious LotR marathon. Start with "The Hobbit" on Monday night and polish off "The Return of the King" by Sunday.
:)
God, it's taken me the better part of a year to even get through LotR, and I'm STILL not done with it.
Of course, I'm only reading it on the toilet, but still...
At least one real-life recovering addict has used the in-game forums to loudly object to the introduction of gleam.
That's odd. It seems to me that looking at the effects of a drug on a fake world to see what might happen is a very interesting sociological experiment. It's hard to produce real-world effects in a static model, if only for the fact that people tend to do unpredictable things. But stick a drug with real effects (and benefits and detriments, just like a real drug) into a world run by diverse peoples, and you just might see a mirroring of real-world behavior regarding it.
It's interesting that cities have banned the drug; I would've thought something like that wouldn't be controlled at a governmental level in a MUD. I wonder if the drug actually forces the user to do things he/she wouldn't want to do, such as kill somebody or steal from them in order to get enough money to buy more gleam. If that's the case, it's more understandable why cities would want to keep it away from their walls. I'm also assuming that this MUD is PK-able?
I think this is cool. But then again, I've always preferred that art imitate life.
If a Mom came home and found a kid playing a game that featured a sex scene, there'd be uproar.
One more reason that parents should be paying attention to their children's habits. If a parent came home and found her child playing a game that featured a sex scene, that mother should realize that she should have paid more attention to the fact that the game was rated M--for MATURE. If she's willing to buy a game like that for her son, she'd better realize that it's her own damned fault.
"I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Joey's copy of 'Flaying Them Alive' had violence and nudity in it!"
Give me a break. Parents need to be parents.
I've never heard anyone in the US use the term "sand niggers."
No, but I've definitely heard the term "towel-heads" used before. It just blows my mind sometimes how some people see this situation. So yes, I really do feel like perhaps a little more tolerance toward other religions and peoples might have prevented a war in the Middle East.
And here I thought it was N'al Q'aeda.
Or, you can accept the addresses, but warn them (in big, red letters) that email sent to those addresses may not get through.
If you try sending any email with big, red letters in it, it's DEFINITELY going to be marked as spam.
A closed mouth with a finger making the "shush" gesture. This software's license forbids or encumbers the publication of reviews without the permission of the publisher. Reviews you may have read of this software may have been selected by the publisher to represent it in an unfairly positive light.
Any license that would prevent you from reviewing the software is highly illegal. Reviews are explicitly covered under the Fair Use clause of copyright law. So much, in fact, that it's entirely legal to include clips of movies, songs, or text from a book in your review. (A perfect example of this was when two whole pages of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was leaked to the public in a review. Court's ruling: Fair Use.)
You could easily challenge something like that in court, if it came down to it.
Many /.ers speak English as a second language. How many languages do you speak/write? Do you always do it flawlessly?
Actually, MOST people I know from other countries who speak/write English as a second language do it FAR better than most native English speakers I know.
I would wager dollars to doughnuts that the person who makes a mistake like that is NOT foreign.
It is true that pianos' even-temperedness makes for much more muted difference in the sounds of different keys (I wouldn't ever say, though, that key "colors" don't apply to an even-tempered piano, though, as you did; I hear them even on a perfectly-tuned piano--or a synthesized piano, which is a perfect example of a perfectly tempered instrument), but I wasn't necessarily talking about a piano in my above post, either. The example I gave above was of Bach's "Magnificat", which is a good example due to its heavy use of fretless strings and wind instruments, which DO play in non-temperament.